# Most Blatant Product Placement **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 27, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718 "2005-05-27T04:01:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Kaspar\_Hauser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@Kaspar\_Hauser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaspar_Hauser)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/81 "2005-05-29T15:39:35Z")
> [@Dooku](#): > > I know I’ve mentioned this in a similar thread, but I may as well mention it again: > > **The Thomas Crown Affair**. In one scene, Rene Russo is talking to Denis Leary in the police station and suddenly stops talking, opens a Pepsi One, and proceeds to **lustily chug drink the entire can** , all while holding the logo perfectly aligned facing the screen, while everyone in the Police station watches her in silence for 30 seconds or so until she’s finished. Then the movie resumes with no comment on what just happened. > > Completely inexcusable, and I couldn’t get back into the spirit of the movie afterwards. > > Oh, and it was also totally out of character, since they earlier make a big deal out of the fact that she only drinks this certain kind of green wheat grass drink, and later in the movie she comments on how Pierce Brosnan had that wheat grass drink ready for her at breakfast. > > Why not go all the way with it? “Do you have Pepsi One, Mr. Crown? Because I only drink Pepsi One. The One stands for One calorie. One great calorie, One great taste. You only need One. Pepsi One.” The odd thing is that when I saw it on, I think, TNT, they blurred the label out. ---
**Author:** ![audreyayn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@audreyayn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audreyayn)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/82 "2005-05-29T18:30:42Z")
Looney Toones: Back in Action made fun of this. They’re wandering around exhausted and lost in the desert and a Walmart appears out of nowhere. The others slowly look at Corporate Lady. “What? The audience expects it. They don’t even notice it.” And as they leave … Bugs Bunny: “It sure was nice of those Walmart folks to give us these Walmart drinks in exchange for saying Walmart so much.” ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/83 "2005-05-29T19:19:58Z")
Did Coca-Cola pay Stanley Kubrick for the scene in _Dr. Strangelove_ where Group Captain Mandrake and Colonel Guano discuss the soda machine? Several people have mentioned the James Bond movies. Oddly enough, Ian Fleming was doing that in the novels, even before they started making movies. He rarely described anything with a generic word, but always with his favorite brand name. James Bond always wore a Rolex Oyster Perpetual, and mixed his drinks with Gordon’s gin. (His cigarettes, however, were custom-made in Turkey, because none of the commercial brands were strong enough to suit him.) Some book critics referred to it as “the Fleming Effect”. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/84 "2005-05-29T21:05:23Z")
The movie studios all have people reading scripts simply to find places to stuff product names into the film/TV show. **Any** time you see a brand name in a show/film, somebody got paid for it being there. I’m surprised no one’s mentioned the movie _Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man_, product placement doesn’t get more blatent than that. A lot of TV shows in the 60s/70s had cars which were provided by a certain manufacturer and even mentioned this in the credits. ---
**Author:** ![Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crowbar_of_Irony_3)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/85 "2005-05-30T06:21:11Z")
> [@Biffy the Elephant Shrew](#): > > But the point is that there is _no earthly reason_ for the shoe scene to be in that movie at all, except as a plug. It’s not a plot point, it doesn’t tell us anything about the character, it’s just an intrusion. Actually, I think the point the scriptwriter is trying to get across is that the main character has a dislike for the new technology (ie, robots), as if he is holding onto to the past, or something. The scene where the female lead was trying to ‘voice activate’ the JVC DVD player is funny, actually. BTW, one more blatant placement in Man in Black II – the high-tech flying car is steered with a PS2 Controller!! ---
**Author:** ![Loopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loopus/32/15343_2.png) [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/86 "2005-05-30T06:56:17Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > A lot of TV shows in the 60s/70s had cars which were provided by a certain manufacturer and even mentioned this in the credits. A good example of this is in _Get Smart_, which opening always starts with Max parking his car. What kind of car he parks changed several times over the five years the show was on the air because they kept getting different sponsors. According to [IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058805/trivia), it was a 1965 Sunbeam Tiger Mark I for two seasons, a Volkswagen Karmann Ghia for two seasons, and a 1969 Opel GT for the last season. ---
**Author:** ![Number](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/number/32/242_2.png) [@Number](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Number)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/87 "2005-05-30T08:10:00Z")
Back in 1997 there was a series of tv ads for the Cadillac Catera. One of them encouraged viewers to “lease a Catera”. It ended with the somewhat odd question, “Well, who is Lisa Catera?” As I recall the spot had been running for a couple of months when the show Chicago Hope introduced a new character, _Dr. Lisa Catera_. And the ad just happened to air during that show. Convenient, no? That’s about as bad as it gets, short of actually naming the show after a product (like the aforementioned Don Johnson/Mickey Rourke film). ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/88 "2005-05-30T08:19:47Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > The most obvious, for me, was Taco Bell in **Demolition Man** Or possibly Pizza Hut. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/89 "2005-05-30T13:50:12Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > **Any** time you see a brand name in a show/film, somebody got paid for it being there. This is not true. While it might be increasingly rare for a mention of a brand name to be unpaid, it still does happen. In addition, there are plenty of uses of brand-name products in programs that the trademark owners explicitly object to. You can bet that they don’t pay for those placements. There was a recent case in which the trademark owner objected to the use of Caterpillar machines by a movie villain – I forget which movie, but I believe it was a sequel to an animated children’s movie. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/90 "2005-05-30T14:56:22Z")
> [@SpoilerVirgin](#): > > When I saw the thread title, I immediately thought of _Castaway_. Its portrayal of FedEx may not be 100% positive, but the whole movie did feel like a FedEx commercial to me. (“We’ll get your package to you no matter what we have to go through!”) I didn’t view the use of Fedex as product placement in _Cast Away_. Instead, the story was about a guy whose job was all about extreme time management who was forced to deal with existence in a place where the passage of time was far less important. He could just as easily have been an efficiency expert at a manufacturing company. And according the the IMDB listing, Fedex didn’t pay product placement fees. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/91 "2005-05-30T15:17:43Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > This is not true. While it might be increasingly rare for a mention of a brand name to be unpaid, it still does happen. > > In addition, there are plenty of uses of brand-name products in programs that the trademark owners explicitly object to. You can bet that they don’t pay for those placements. There was a recent case in which the trademark owner objected to the use of Caterpillar machines by a movie villain – I forget which movie, but I believe it was a sequel to an animated children’s movie. Many times when a company objects to the use of their name in a film, they’ll sue. The cigarette companies used to run ads in writing magazines saying that if you ever used their name in conjunction with underage smoking (in a fiction piece, I presume) they’d sue the piss out of you. Oh, and the whole “dune buggy” business in ST: Nemesis was product placement. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/92 "2005-05-30T16:05:04Z")
> [@Dewey Finn](#): > > And according the the IMDB listing, Fedex didn’t pay product placement fees. Product placement doesn’t necessarily involve writing a check. I’m quite sure that even if no cash changed hands, FedEx provided the use of its planes and perhaps other facilities, saving the production hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars. ---
**Author:** ![HelloKitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecccb3/32.png) [@HelloKitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelloKitty)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/93 "2005-05-30T16:10:04Z")
OH! I saw one just yesterday in **Clear and Present Danger** : They are doing a military excercise where they are trying to “find the sniper in the bushes”. The commander radios the guy in the field to tell him “2 steps to the left, sniper in the grass”. The soldier looks down and picks up an orange wrapper… “He had lunch here, sir. **McDonalds. Quarter Pounder. With Cheese.** ” Pretty blatant. (Now, how did he get a quarter pounder out there in the bushes? And if he was carrying it in his boot or whatever you can’t tell me they couldn’t SMELL a QPWC. But he’s a super sniper so I guess he figured out somehow to mask the smell. So then he blows his cover by leaving the wrapper out there…!!! It’s a riddle wrapped in an enigma, I tell ya.) ---
**Author:** ![haardvark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@haardvark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haardvark)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/94 "2005-05-30T20:38:11Z")
Waded through the whole thing to make sure I wasn’t being redundant. I know they were drek-fests, but the _Mission Impossible_ movies had gobs of unsubtle placement for Apple Computers. Oh, and the false perspective coke can was the LEAST problematic placement move in _Leonard, Part 6_, I assure you. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/95 "2005-05-31T00:51:47Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Many times when a company objects to the use of their name in a film, they’ll sue. The cigarette companies used to run ads in writing magazines saying that if you ever used their name in conjunction with underage smoking (in a fiction piece, I presume) they’d sue the piss out of you. They’d sue, but they wouldn’t win. In the Caterpillar case, for example, they lost and they lost big. So long as all they are doing is showing people using the product as it is used (to bulldoze things, or cute animated heroes, in this case) and not unjustifiably implying some kind of negligence on the part of the manufacturer or defect, they can do what they want. And movie companies have the money to stand up to this kind of lawsuit, and they do. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/96 "2005-05-31T01:03:33Z")
> [@haardvark](#): > > I know they were drek-fests, but the _Mission Impossible_ movies had gobs of unsubtle placement for Apple Computers. They’re hardly the only ones. In the world of Hollywood films, Apple computers are apparently the only kind made. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/97 "2005-05-31T01:16:22Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > They’d sue, but they wouldn’t win. In the Caterpillar case, for example, they lost and they lost big. So long as all they are doing is showing people using the product as it is used (to bulldoze things, or cute animated heroes, in this case) and not unjustifiably implying some kind of negligence on the part of the manufacturer or defect, they can do what they want. And movie companies have the money to stand up to this kind of lawsuit, and they do. Yeah, _if_ they go after the movie company. If they pick the writer of a short story or novel, it can be a different matter. Doesn’t matter that the law’s on your side if you can’t afford the lawyer to defend yourself (and since it’s a civil matter, you’ve no hope of getting a public defender). ---
**Author:** ![Sternvogel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Sternvogel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sternvogel)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/98 "2005-05-31T04:35:23Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > When **Mad** magazine parodied [_The F.B.I._], they made a big deal about this, ostentatiously showing the (Ford) cars, and even adding a character named “special guest agent L.T.D. Thunderbird” > > I heard that the old series **Route 66** featured a car made by the same company. Apparently at the end of each season, they found some excuse to have the car traded in or replaced so they were always driving the most recent model. This is true, except for the fact that the autos featured in _Route 66_ were General Motors products – specifically, [Chevrolet Corvettes.](http://www.tvacres.com/autos_chevy_route66.htm) **dalej42** : Looks as if [Pepsi Twist](http://www.pepsiworld.com/pepsi_brands/product_info/pepsitwist/index.php) is still being produced. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/99 "2005-05-31T11:17:42Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Yeah, _if_ they go after the movie company. If they pick the writer of a short story or novel, it can be a different matter. Doesn’t matter that the law’s on your side if you can’t afford the lawyer to defend yourself (and since it’s a civil matter, you’ve no hope of getting a public defender). They’re not going to be able to go after a writer if something hasn’t been published. It is standard practice for book publishers to agree by contract to defend authors against lawsuits regarding what’s been published. Publishers’ lawyers thoroughly vet books before publication and take out anything that could be defamatory or constitute trademark diliution. Just take a trip to a library – it is very common for novels to use trademarks in ways that the trademark owners would object to. Unless your depiction implies that the actual company is involved in some kind of wrongdoing, you have nothing to worry about. You can depict Nazis as loving Levi’s jeans, drinking Coca-Cola, and chewing Wrigley’s gum and using them in nefarious ways. Fear of lawsuit is just not a realistic fear in such cases. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718/100 "2005-05-31T12:11:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by CalMeacham > When Mad magazine parodied [The F.B.I.], they made a big deal about this, ostentatiously showing the (Ford) cars, and even adding a character named “special guest agent L.T.D. Thunderbird” > > I heard that the old series Route 66 featured a car made by the same company. Apparently at the end of each season, they found some excuse to have the car traded in or replaced so they were always driving the most recent model. > > This is true, except for the fact that the autos featured in Route 66 were General Motors products – specifically, Chevrolet Corvettes. By “the same company” I meant that the cars were made by the same company every season, not that they were always Fords. I never saw the series, so I couldn’t remember what kind they were, except that they were supposed to be sporty. Thanks for identifying the,. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-blatant-product-placement/305718.md?page=6)